Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

[pnwmom]

It seems to happen fairly often around here, and it always disappoints me. If DU'ers so easily assume a prosecution suggests guilt, how can we be surprised when the rest of the country doesn't seem to care about the Constitution?

[melm00se]

1. it is the government's

responsiblility to maintain the "innocent until proven guilty" stance not individual people.

The Constitution is not a personal conduct guide but a government conduct guide.

[shance]

2. Who is the "government"? We are supposed to be our government.

Not a corporatized bought and paid for group of unaccountable citizens in Washington like we are seeing more and more of.

The health of our government depends on citizens participation.

[sui generis]

3. that's a bizarre defense

I don't think it's defensible; however at some point common sense has to step in too.

Did O.J. do it? Almost certainly.

Is there still a chance Terry Schiavo might recover? Certainly not.

When the feds were chasing Andrew Kunanan, it would not have been prudent to assume his innocence, as a spectator, but it would not have been prudent to assume his guilt, as a juror (had he lived to see a trial).

[pnwmom]

16. I agree, sui generis. Common sense has to step in.

What I am talking about is an attitude that immediately condemns the suspect -- sometimes based only on a few paragraphs' worth of information in an OP. THAT isn't about common sense or about the assumption of innocence. For example, in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2817347&mesg_id=2817347

[kiahzero]

8. It's irrational to not to follow the presumption of innocence

It makes sense to ditch the "beyond a reasonable doubt" bit, because that's there to reach a certain threshold of certainty about guilt. However, it doesn't really make sense to believe something while simultaneously believing that the evidence indicates the opposite.

[ThomCat]

11. I strongly disagree.

It's irrational for individuals to always presume innocence. Government must presume innocence to prevent corruption, but people often must at least suspect guilt in order to protect ourselves.

[ThomCat]

10. Exactly.

If we all assume that everyone is innocent until proof is presented otherwise then nobody would ever go looking for that proof. Somebody has to take the combative position. That's part of our justice system too. So this idea that we should all, always, presume that everyone is innocent is rediculous.

[pnwmom]

30. It's the police investigators and the prosecution who are supposed

to be looking for the proof. The prosecution takes the combative position. And has the burden of proving guilt. The accused is not supposed to have to prove his or her innocence.

[MrCoffee]

4. Dateline NBC: To Catch A Predator is what happened.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. I think that program is more a symptom of how our society is now.

I know I've seen a reduction in presumption of innocence over the course of my adult years. And I'm not just talking about cases where a moral dilemma is created, but all cases.

[pnwmom]

31. Me, too, Lone_Star_Dem.

I think the law-and-order Republican meme has spread widely.

[Tellurian]

5. I heard today, the EPA considers biofuel a pollutant

french fry grease, mazzola, any type of cooking oil (used by diesel powered trucks and cars) as the fuel of the future to rid us of our dependency on petroleum.

That was a new one on me.

[Orangepeel]

6. If I'm on a jury, it is my responsibility to assume innocence unless guilt is proven

in my living room, not so much.

There are people I believe are innocent even thought they were judged guilty and there are people I believe are guilty even though they were acquitted. So what?

[pnwmom]

18. I'm not talking about people who may make a reasoned supposition

based on a thorough knowledge of a situation.

I'm talking about people who, sometimes based on nothing more than a few paragraphs in an OP, are eager to condemn a suspect -- such as happened in the link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2817347&mesg_id=2817347

And earlier, I saw this for months in discussions about the Duke students who were accused of rape.

[librechik]

9. out the window with the victory of Newt's language assault on liberals

you can't demonize your neighbors unless you first tell them the innocent till proven guilty stuff only matters to liberal wussies. Otherwise a true American would insist that the person being demonized is innocent until proven guilty. So Newt used the existing lust for vigilante justice in the American populace to throw that right away.

Hope Newt enjoyed his generation of Republican majority. It was a short one.

[madmusic]

12. It's battered people syndrome...

They either get trashed or mimic the power of their abuser. No other options.

[pnwmom]

23. Maybe that does explain it.

We're less afraid of the state if we can convince ourselves it never makes mistakes.

[Igel]

13. I'm going to split a hair.

I assume anybody is innocent until proven guilty, as far as punishment is concerned. Then again, I seldom carry out punishment.

For people I interact with, I don't necessarily assume they're innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes it's prudent to assume guilty until the evidence is explained.

The baby sitter's been accused of molesting kids? Is the person making the accusation likely to be reliable? If I think so, then the accusation's plausible--if I ignore the evidence and my kid's molested, I've not been prudent. Is the accuser a flake? The baby sitter stays; if I fire her on flimsy grounds I'm being too risk averse, esp. if I know she needs the money for a really good purpose. I weigh prudence against consequences. On a better day I may decide to check around.

The chef at the new restaurant has been rumored to chop up babies and put them in the Hungarian goulash ... because only infants give it just the right flavor? Ok, that's ridiculous; but while I may go to the restaurant--note the may--I'll certainly think twice about ordering the goulash. The consequences of that kind of piddling prudence are, well, piddling. If I hear of a mass movement to boycott the restaurant, I'd likely argue in his defense.

But if the chef's taken to court, I'll suspend my judgement until the jury's heard the evidence, and argue against those that would want to inflict some sort of government-sponsored punishment on him. After all, I have nothing personally at stake. It doesn't mean that I may not form some preliminary judgement, in an idle sort of way: But then I'd still argue that the guy needs a fair trial and deserves to be assume innocent. After all, while some evidence becomes public there's always the chance the evidence is incomplete or skewed.

All of this isn't necessarily fair; but it's prudent.

[mondo joe]

14. Presumption of innocence is an important trial principle. It doesn't mean

we can't think someone is guilty.

Hell, if you couldn't think someone is guilty you couldn't even have an ACCUSED.

[pnwmom]

15. We have an "accused" because someone -- the prosecutor --

thinks she is guilty and has a case s/he is willing to bring before a jury, and sometimes because a grand jury has produced an indictment saying there is sufficient evidence to base a case on.

But what I'm talking about that is more than thinking -- it's an attitude of condemning the suspect , and often on the basis of very little information. Most recently, I saw it on the thread below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2817347&mesg_id=2817347

Another one that springs to mind was when the Duke students were indicted several months ago -- and hordes of DU'ers jumped out to condemn them, and persisted, even as more and more information came to light indicating that a rape probably hadn't even occurred, much less that any students were involved, much less that those particular students could have been involved.

[mondo joe]

19. Funny - I'll bet if the defendant wore a Burqa you'd have no problem

reaching a conclusion. I've already seen you do it.

[pnwmom]

21. I think the Burqa (not the head scarf, but the face covering)

is used to oppress women. But I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

[T Town Jake]

24. Yep - me too. Pretty selective with the outrage, that one.

(n/t)

[T Town Jake]

17. The OP is trying to continue a flame war she engineered in another thread...

...there isn't the slightest sincerity to the post at all, just more shit-stirring.

[BuyingThyme]

20. The gal who got raped twice decided you had it wrong.

[pnwmom]

22. Huh?

[BuyingThyme]

25. Assuming innocence is dangerously stupid.

It's something you do in the court of law, not in the real world.

[pnwmom]

33. So it's okay to be part of a screaming chorus of

"off with their heads!" on the basis of reading a news article or seeing a report on TV?

[mondo joe]

26. How do you feel about OJ Simpson?

Just wondering.

[BuyingThyme]

28. Can I answer? Just for fun.

OJ is guilty, but the criminal trial verdict was correct.

[pnwmom]

29. The difference between that case and the recent ones is

that a trial has occurred. Actually, two trials, since he was tried on civil grounds also. All the evidence was presented and -- in a way -- we were all jurors.

Yes, call me a hypocrite but I agree with the results of the second trial. I think the jurors in the first trial made a mistake.

But what I'm talking about here is jumping to the presumption of guilt before a trial is even held. Such as the President of Duke did, when he said that the upcoming trial will allow the students to "prove their innocence." No one in this country is supposed to have to prove their innocence. The prosecution is supposed to prove guilt.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

27. Everyone seems to think that just because someone is charged...

They are automatically guilty. Nance Grace anyone!? Anyway, It used to be better for a million guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be put in prison. Now it's just a race to get someone behind bars so that the victim's family can FEEL better. It's fucking ridiculous.

[spanone]

32. That's so pre-911.

:sarcasm: